Image via beta.soulscode.com
Behold Hillary Clinton’s hypocritical harrumph at the revelation from leaked private and personal tax records being published in the New York Times. Her umbrage at Trump reporting a carried-over nearly $1 billion loss on his 2015 tax return is phony and ignores that this is a common practice legally taken advantage of by many, including herself. Looking on page 17 of her 2015 tax returns, we find the righteously indignant Mrs. Clinton claiming a nearly $700,000 capital gains loss on assets held for more than one year.
The New York Times, as it turns out, also used the net loss provision of the tax code, and why not? The purpose of the provision is to let businesses survive in rough times and to keep their employees employed. Without it small businesses would die in infancy and larger businesses would teeter in tough times. This provision was put into the tax code to stimulate investment and encourage the risk-takers who create jobs. Trump was right when he said he had a fiduciary responsibility to investors and employees to pay as little tax as legally possible. The first objective of business is to stay in business, something which someone who never created a job or met a payroll might not grasp.
What kind of genius loses nearly a billion dollars? A genius like Obama buddy Warren Buffett reported a pre-tax loss of $873 million for tax year 2013. And, as the blog Flopping Aces reports, the New York Times also has used the ability to offset taxes with losses:
Image via wonderfulengineering.com
At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2016, America said good-bye to its long-time oversight of the internet, and along with it, the certainty of internet freedom.
Because the internet was started in the United States, from its inception, the system of managing domain names and numbers has always been conducted in or by the United States. In 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) contracted ICANN, a California-based non-profit, to perform the function of IANA management. It’s a critical role to ensure that internet domain names are not duplicated and that the assigned numbers are secure. DoC maintained oversight of ICANN and also performed some related administrative tasks.
Under U.S. oversight, ICANN has been doing a stellar job of keeping the internet free and secure. But, as internet usage expanded beyond U.S. borders, demands came for the U.S. to cede control of internet oversight. These demands were always resisted. Then, on March 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced that it would relinquish internet oversight and place it into the hands of a then-unnamed global multi-stakeholder. Free speech advocates and others expressed concern that the move might result in domain management falling into the hands of dictatorial regimes such as China or Russia. Both the DoC and ICANN assured the public that they would not allow internet oversight to transfer to a tyrannical government or to any government entity.
The proposed plan to transfer stewardship of IANA was finally completed in March of 2016 at an ICANN conference held in Morrocco. Under this proposal, ICANN itself will maintain authority over IANA, but will create an oversight body called the “empowerment community” to which it will have to answer. The proposal also imbues ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) with increased say. Though ICANN’s bylaws prohibit any particular government from making direct decisions regarding budgets, board member removal or ICANN governance, the new proposal will now make the GAC a participant in these decisions. Additionally, the requirement to reject GAC proposals will increase from a simple majority vote to a vote of 60 percent. These changes defeat the original purpose of the Committee, which was to ensure that no government would have too much influence over ICANN’s operations.
SECURE FREEDOM MINUTE
Of all Barack Obama’s disastrous legacies, the Middle East being bequeathed to his successor may be the most problematic. His undermining of Israel, help in toppling friendly governments, empowering of Iran and embrace of Islamic supremacists of the Muslim Brotherhood have inflamed the region. They have also contributed to the mass migration threatening the same in Europe.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was intimately involved in these decisions. Ditto her most influential advisor: Brotherhood-tied Huma Abedin.
Daily Caller‘s Richard Pollock reveals just-released Abedin emails showing her contemptuously discouraging ex-President Bill Clinton from addressing the pro-Israel group, AIPAC.
As Huma is universally expected to have a top job in a Hillary Clinton administration, we need to know: What role did she play in the disasters to date – and will her Islamist lineage lead to more, and worse, in the future?